VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00916
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00916
Petitioner: Margaret Haworth
Filed: 2015-10-15
Decided: 2016-03-07
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2011-10-05
Condition: bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 370000

AI-assisted case summary:
Margaret Haworth filed a petition on October 15, 2015, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. She alleged that her influenza vaccine, received on October 5, 2011, caused her to develop bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), with residual effects lasting more than six months. The respondent denied that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner's alleged conditions. Despite maintaining their respective positions, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on October 13, 2015. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the file and found the stipulation to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision. The stipulation awarded Margaret Haworth a lump sum of $370,000.00, payable by check to Petitioner, as compensation for all damages. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, clinical details, medical tests, treatments, or the mechanism of causation. Petitioner was represented by Ronald C. Homer of Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C., and Respondent was represented by Adriana R. Teitel of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Margaret Haworth alleged that her October 5, 2011, influenza vaccine caused bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). Respondent denied causation. The parties settled the case via stipulation, which was adopted by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. The stipulation awarded Petitioner $370,000.00. The public decision does not detail the specific theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism linking the vaccine to the alleged injuries.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00916-0
Date issued/filed: 2016-03-07
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/15/2015) Regarding 23 DECISION Stipulation Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ay) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-00916-UNJ Document 29 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-916V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MARGARET HAWORTH, *
*
Petitioner, * Filed: October 15, 2015
*
v. *
* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Bilateral
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Sensorineural Hearing Loss (“SNHL”);
* Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis
Respondent. * (“ADEM”)
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ronald C. Homer, Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Adriana R. Teitel, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On September 29, 2014, Margaret Haworth filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges that her
October 5, 2011, receipt of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine caused her to develop bilateral sensorineural
hearing loss (“SNHL”) and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (“ADEM”). Petitioner further
alleges that she experienced the residual effects of this injury for more than six months.
Respondent denies that Petitioner’s alleged SNHL and ADEM and their residual effects were
caused-in-fact by the flu vaccine. Respondent further denies that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner any
other injury or her current condition. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated
positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed October 13, 2015) that the issues before them could be settled,
and that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioner compensation.
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, I will post it on the United States
Court of Federal Claims website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116
Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002) (current version at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2014)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the published decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential
information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of
any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged
or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole decision will be available to the public. Id.
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of
1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 through 34 (2012)).

Case 1:14-vv-00916-UNJ Document 29 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 7
I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation
(as attached hereto) is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the
terms set forth therein.
The stipulation awards:
 A lump sum of $370,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
Stipulation ¶ 8. This amounts represents compensation for all damages that would be available under
Section 15(a) of the Act.
I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amounts set forth above to be made to
Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the
court is directed to enter judgment herewith.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or separately)
a notice renouncing their right to seek review.
2

Case 1:14-vv-00916-UNJ Document 29 Filed 03/07/16 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:14-vv-00916-UNJ Document 29 Filed 03/07/16 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:14-vv-00916-UNJ Document 29 Filed 03/07/16 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:14-vv-00916-UNJ Document 29 Filed 03/07/16 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:14-vv-00916-UNJ Document 29 Filed 03/07/16 Page 7 of 7